Architecture and Public Policy

Related Topics

CIS explores how changes in the architecture of computer networks affect the economic environment for innovation and competition on the Internet, and how the law should react to those changes. This work has lead us to analyze the issue of network neutrality, perhaps the Internet's most debated policy issue, which concerns Internet user's ability to access the content and software of their choice without interference from network providers.

Professor of Law and Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School, Director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, and Associate Professor (by courtesy) of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University

Barbara van Schewick is a Professor of Law and Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar at Stanford Law School, Director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, Associate Professor (by courtesy) of Electrical Engineering in Stanford University’s Department of Electrical Engineering, and a leading expert on net neutrality.

Paddy Leerssen is the Open Internet Fellow at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. His work focuses on digital media and communications law, with a particular emphasis on net neutrality policy. He previously held positions at the Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law (IViR), and the non-governmental organization European Digital Rights (EDRi).

Marvin Ammori is a leading First Amendment lawyer and Internet policy expert. He was instrumental to the adoption of network neutrality rules in the US and abroad–having been perhaps the nation’s leading legal advocate advancing network neutrality–and also instrumental to the defeat of the SOPA and PIPA copyright/censorship bills.

Emily Baxter is a research associate for Women's Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress, focusing on women's and families' economic security, women's leadership, and work-family balance. She previously worked as the special assistant for the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center. In the fall of 2012, Emily was a field organizer for President Obama’s re-election campaign near her hometown of Erie, Pennsylvania.

Pages

The essay below serves as introduction to the Stanford Center for Internet and Society's Law, Borders, and Speech Conference Proceedings Volume. The conference brought together experts from around the world to discuss conflicting national laws governing online speech -- and how courts, Internet platforms, and public interest advocates should respond to increasing demands for these laws to be enforced on the global Internet.

Today, someone asked me about the Internet and human well-being over the next decade. The question was a healthy provocation to look at the big picture. I chose “more helped than harmed” from the very short list of radio-button responses. Here’s my elaboration:

Today the FCC Commissioners voted 3-2 to eliminate longstanding net neutrality protections, reclassify internet service providers as ‘information services’ under Title I of the Communications Act, and ban states from enacting their own net neutrality protections.

Network neutrality prevents broadband Internet service providers from micromanaging our lives online. Constraining the networks this way enables and even empowers Internet users to be active and productive human beings rather than passive consumers. Unfortunately, the network neutrality debate is so polarized that neither side sees the full picture.

Pages

On Tuesday, October 27, the European Parliament will vote on rules intended to protect network neutrality in the European Union (EU). However, the proposal about to be adopted fails to deliver network neutrality to the EU and is much weaker than current net neutrality rules in the United States. Fortunately, it’s not too late to change course. Members of Parliament can still secure meaningful network neutrality for Europe — if they adopt key amendments on Tuesday.

Tomorrow, the European Parliament will vote on a proposal that will decide the future of the open Internet in Europe. The proposal is supposed to protect net neutrality, the principle that keeps the Internet an open and free platform, but it contains dangerous loopholes that threaten the future of free speech, innovation and democracy in Europe.

Tomorrow, the European Parliament will vote on a proposal that will decide the future of the open Internet in Europe. The proposal is supposed to protect net neutrality, the principle that keeps the Internet an open and free platform, but it contains dangerous loopholes that threaten the future of free speech, innovation, and democracy in Europe.

Pages

Comcast Corp. v. FCC is a 2010 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia case holding that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have ancillary jurisdiction over Comcast’s Internet service under the language of the Communications Act of 1934. In so holding, the Court vacated a 2008 order issued by the FCC that asserted jurisdiction over Comcast’s network management polices and censured Comcast from interfering with its subscribers' use of peer-to-peer software.

In 2005, on the same day the FCC re-classified DSL service and effectively reduced the regulatory obligations of DSL providers, the FCC announced its unanimous view that consumers are entitled to certain rights and expectations with respect to their broadband service, including the right to:

"“The net neutrality repeal, at its heart, is really a way to allow the companies that we pay to get online, the Comcasts, the AT&Ts, the Verizons of the world, to make more money by figuring out how to get money out of the businesses that are online,” said Ryan Singel, the Media and Strategy Fellow at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society on a call with Jezebel."

"Ryan Singel, a fellow at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, believes that legislation may survive judicial scrutiny, and the political prospects for defending the ruling are dim. “The sheer number of efforts across the states and across party lines goes to show how badly ISPs and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai misplayed their hands by ramming through a total repeal of net neutrality protections without regard to public or expert input,” he wrote by email. “It’s likely a preview of net neutrality being a prominent issue in the 2018 mid-terms and beyond.”"

"With the Dec. 14 repeal, Comcast and others will be able to charge content companies exorbitant fees without, technically, blocking. This fundamentally changes how the internet works, argues Ryan Singel, a fellow at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. Any website or service may now have to pay ISPs to load, reducing the number and variety of free services. Expect telecoms to exploit this power extracting maximum fees and deterring new entrants."

""The vote to repeal net neutrality is easily the most unpopular decision the FCC has ever made," said Malkia Cyril, a civil rights activist and director of the Center for Media Justice, in an email to Truthout. "The level of corruption and outright disdain for democracy shown by the Republican members of the FCC has been atrocious.""

Stanford CIS brings together scholars, academics, legislators, students, programmers, security researchers, and scientists to study the interaction of new technologies and the law and to examine how the synergy between the two can either promote or harm public goods like free speech, innovation, privacy, public commons, diversity, and scientific inquiry

"Veronica B.: Look at it this way. Imagine Amazon started a larva farm too, and they could pay for faster internet speeds, get on an internet fast lane, and advertise to their customers in a way that Patrick or any startup bug business couldn’t. See the problem? Okay, the edible bug-growing business might not be a priority for Amazon at the moment, but did you think Amazon would ever buy a grocery chain until they bought wholefoods? 10 years ago, did you think Google would get into self-driving cars?

This week on CounterSpin: FCC chair Ajit Pai has announced his plans to gut net neutrality; the former Verizon lawyer and Jeff Sessions staffer declared his intentions at a private event in DC. So the victory activists fought for—having broadband recognized as a public utility like the telephone, and not some sort of corporate gift—is in jeopardy. What does this mean for all of us who rely on an open internet, and in particular for communities of color, for whom the web’s relatively even playing field is crucial for communication and organizing?

In 2013, Elon Musk proposed an "open source transportation concept" of levitating vehicles zooming passengers through vacuum tubes at 760 miles an hour. It would be weatherproof, energy-efficient, relatively inexpensive, have autonomous controls. Its impact on urban and inter-city transport could reshape economies and families.